Roger: I wanted to get your
opinion on something I've noticed a great deal lately, especially since the
beginning of Clear Channel’s “Less is More” initiative. What I’m referring to
is the growing trend of announcers who, when leading into a commercial break,
will say something like, “I'll be back in three minutes.” Or, dumber yet, “Back
in 2 minutes and 45 seconds.”

Am I missing something? Why
would anyone tell his or her listeners how long the break is going to be? I
would guess that most radio listeners know that a couple of minutes are going to
pass when a commercial break begins.

However, I doubt many of them
are sitting in their cars with a stopwatch. Why advertise it? When what they
are really saying is, “Punch around the dial for three minutes,” and hope the
listeners come back.

I guess a three-minute break is
something to be proud of if your station has had a history of long 5-6 minute
breaks. But, do the listeners really care? Have you seen or performed any
research on this topic? I've noticed this as well on TV entertainment news
magazine type shows. - Anonymous

Anon: I find the controversy/debate/discussion about the “Less is More”
campaign (as well as other non-Clear Channel radio stations that are reducing
their spot loads) very amusing and reminiscent of the
controversy/debate/discussion in reference to telling the artists and titles of
songs played on music radio stations. Let me explain…

Somewhere around 1982, when radio research began to become important, listeners
(in all formats) said that jocks should tell the artists and titles of songs
they played. What happened? Most PDs said something like, “The listeners know
all these songs and that information isn’t necessary. Besides, saying all that
stuff interrupts the ‘flow’ of the radio station.”

Year after year, listeners asked for artists’ names and song titles, and year
after year, radio stations did not give them the information they wanted to
hear. Then somewhere in the late 80s, a few radio stations “gave in” and started
telling artists’ names and song titles (presell or backsell). What happened?
When listeners were asked what they liked most about their favorite radio
station, one of the top items was, “They always tell the artists’ names and song
titles.” Duh. It worked.

Now, let’s move to the spot loads on radio stations. For many years, radio
stations had 8-12 minutes of commercials, but this changed when the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated the cap on the number of radio
stations one person or company could own. The big companies (mostly publicly
owned) needed more revenue to service their enormous debts. The total number of
commercial minutes in an hour began to creep up, and in some markets, radio
stations were carrying 20 or 21 minutes of commercials per hour.

What happened? Listeners
complained. Listeners said they were listening to radio less because they were
tired of all the commercials. What did the owners do? They continued to air
20-21 minutes of commercials.

But a few years passed and more research (and lower Arbitron numbers) indicated
that something was going on—something (duh) is affecting cume and TSL. What
could that be? Allow me to take a wild guess—listeners were tired of too many
commercials.

What happened? The decision-makers, probably after dozens of meetings, decided
to “try” reducing the number of commercial minutes in an hour. On to your
question about announcing the amount of time in the stop set…

I don’t know if it’s a good idea to say something like, “Back in three
minutes.” I didn’t know how to answer your question because I haven’t conducted
any research on the topic (other people may have already done many studies.)

Since I didn’t have any information, I decided to conduct a preliminary study to
(at least) get an indication of what listeners think of the practice. I’m
teaching an Introduction to Mass Media course this semester at the University of
Colorado in Boulder. There are 200 students in the class—all 18 year-old
freshmen business majors. I used them as my sample, knowing that the results
can’t be generalized, but I wanted to have some information to help answer your
question. Here is what I found:

After explaining a few things about commercials on the radio, I asked the
students if they prefer the DJ to say, (1) “I’ll be back right after these
messages.” or (2) “I’ll be back in three minutes.” I told them that the time—3
minutes—could vary. I was surprised at the result because I have never seen
this before….100% of the students (N = 200) said they prefer the DJ to say the
number of minutes, or minutes and seconds, the commercial break will take. I
asked them why they like that approach and two answers emerged (about equally
distributed): (1) They knew how long they could switch to another radio station;
and (2) They knew how long they would have to wait to hear more music (didn’t
switch away).

As I said, my sample is not representative of all radio listeners. I had no
information and decided to ask the students in my class just so I could get an
indication of what “average” listeners think. Obviously, it’s necessary to
replicate (repeat) this study with other samples of listeners, but there is an
indication that listeners may like the approach of telling how long the break
will take.

So, I would say that the “jury” is still out. I need more information in order
to provide a more definitive answer.

“Back in 3 Minutes” –
Comment

Hi Roger: Further to your
comments about announcers saying, pre-commercial break and “I'll be back in 3
Minutes.”…

In my radio school, we teach the
students that the phrase "I'll be back" is a TV presenter's term and is not
applicable to radio. The on-air attitude should be that events that occur
within a radio show, whether they be music, commercials, news, etc., are very
much part of that program and not something separate. Meaning the presenter is
there listening to them and, in fact, is not actually going anywhere. Besides
which, the listeners could very well think: "Well, if he’s not going to stick
around for the commercial break, why should I?”

Just a thought. Cheers. - Ian
MacRae, Sydney

Ian: Thanks for the
comments. I appreciate your help and I like the philosophy behind not saying,
“I’ll be back…”

Backsell or Presell Songs?

I
work for a college radio station. One argument that we get into a lot is whether
we should presell or backsell our music. Which do you think is best? - Art

Art: First, I need to point out that it doesn’t matter what I think.
What matters is what your listeners think. Now, since you asked the question, I
have to assume that you haven’t asked your listeners this question in some
type of research study. So the best I can do is give you a general idea of how
listeners from around the country answer about your question.

Overall, there doesn’t seem to be a preference. With this in mind, it is
probably best to rotate your approach—use a presell for one set and a backsell
for the next set. One important thing here is the number of songs you’re
playing in a row. I can tell you that reading a list of 10 song titles and
artists is not preferred by listeners. So . . .

If you’re playing several songs in a row (let’s say 10), the best approach—according
to what listeners say—is to split them up. For example, play three songs and
do a backsell, presell the next three, and then backsell the last four. Telling
artists and titles is not considered "talk" by the listeners and does
not break the promise of playing "X" number of songs in a row.

Backselling Songs

A recent story reported that
Paragon Media Strategies found that 82% of a sample of 407 15-64 year-olds said
that it is “very important” for DJs to announce the artists and titles of songs
played on the radio. Do you think this is right? – John

John: Although 82% seems a
bit low to me, I’m not in the position to say whether the results are right or
wrong. However, research on the importance of telling the artists and titles
goes back to the early 1980s, and the results by Paragon support what has been
found consistently for over 20 years.

Although I didn’t read the Paragon
study you refer to, the results highlight one of the advantages of the
scientific method of knowing—replication. Repeating (replicating) a research
study or research question is not present in the other methods of
knowing—authority, tenacity, and intuition.

Just because something was true
yesterday or is true today does not mean it will be true tomorrow. In the
scientific method of knowing, “facts” about anything are always fair game
for re-evaluation (replication), and scientific researchers welcome such
re-evaluation. Replication, keeps information “in line.” Telling artists and
titles has consistently been in the Top 3 most important elements on a music
radio station for over 20 years. The Paragon study provides indications that
our knowledge about telling artists and titles on music radio stations continues
to be accurate.

The sample size of 407 indicates
that this was a study done in one market and is not a national study, which
usually includes a sample of at least 1,200. In most situations, the results of
such a study could not be generalized to any other situation, but since the
Paragon results support the findings of 20+ years of previous research, the
results can be considered reliable. However, do not interpret the Paragon
study as a national study. It isn't.

Back to the Future?

Hi, Doc: I was watching a
documentary about the paradoxes of going back to the past. They said that,
maybe in the future, someone would find the way to go back in time through a
"worm hole" or some other method. But if that quest could be achieved, would it
be known by now or not? I mean, if someone in the future could find a way to go
back to the past, wouldn't that would be something so extraordinary that we
should already know about it? Do you know any response to this? - Anonymous

Anon: Hi to you too. A paradox? Oh, my. Before I get to your time
travel question, I need to first discuss a little bit about paradoxes so that
all readers are on the same level. I'm going to try very hard to keep this
short.

What is a paradox? If you check
dictionary definitions, you find that a paradox is defined as: (1) a tenet (law,
rule, guideline) that is contrary to received opinion; (2) a statement that is
seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true; and
(3) a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true; and so on. There
are many famous paradoxes you can read about if you,
click here.

OK, if we eliminate all the
esoteric language in the definitions of the word paradox, it comes down to this
. . . A paradox is something that falls in the area called a "thought
experiment" because there is no hard evidence to support either side of the
argument, and regardless of what one person may say, another person will always
come up with an answer something like, "Well, sure, that could be true, but what
if . . ." In other words, there is always another "what if" scenario
tacked on and no one ever gets to a real answer. Again, a paradox is a "thought
experiment" or a series of "what if" statements that never lead to a conclusion
because there is never a verifiable answer, only additional speculations.

I equate paradoxes to walking or
running on a treadmill. Regardless of how long a person walks or runs on a
treadmill, the person never gets anywhere—the person stops in the same place
he/she started. Likewise, regardless of how long people discuss a paradox, they
will never get anywhere. But some people like to argue, some people like to
speculate, and some people just don't have a whole lot to do and focus on
questions that don't have verifiable answers.

A good example is the
"Grandfather/Grandmother Paradox," which poses this question: Suppose a man
traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter
met the traveler's grandmother? Oh, please. My answer to that question is: "If
I traveled back in time and killed someone, I would kill the grandfather of the
person who asked me that question, which means that I would never be asked the
question." OK, so there are my thoughts about paradoxes. Let's go to your time
travel question.

You asked, "If that quest [time
travel] could be achieved, would it be known by now or not? I mean, if someone
in the future could find a way to go back to the past, wouldn't that would be
something so extraordinary that we should already know about it?"

Your question has two
possibilities: (1) A person from the future has figured out a way to travel back
in time; or (2) A person from the present time has figured out a way to travel
back in time.

Person from the Future

If someone from the future has
figured out a way to go back to the past and is visiting us right now, in the
year 2010, that means we are now living in the past. In other words, I'm not
really typing the answer to your question at this moment because the activity
has already happened. Hmm. I have a problem with that because I can't find
documentation anywhere verifying that the present has already happened. What IS
is actually what WAS? I need proof.

In addition, I would think that if
the present time is actually the past and someone from the future figured out
how to travel back in time, that the person or would make himself/herself known,
or at least leave some evidence of his/her presence. But I could be wrong.

Person from the Present

If someone from our present time
has figured out how to travel back in time, there are two possibilities: (1)
The person does not want to discuss the event; or (2) The person is stuck in
some previous year in history and can't get back. Neither of these two
possibilities is likely.

It's unlikely because there is only
speculation about how time travel could occur and the speculation involves some
very "out of this world" theories involving things such as traveling faster than
the speed of light, black holes, worm holes, parallel universes, and cosmic
strings. Speculation on top of speculation isn't very productive.

Now, I'm not saying that paradoxes
(mind experiments) aren't worthwhile. Thinking about things is a very valuable
approach to solving questions and problems. However, in my case, I think it's
more productive to think about things that have plausible answers. For example,
I don't think it's important for me to think about things like: (1)
What if I could fly? (2) What if I were a billionaire? Or (3) What if I could
predict the future? I can't do any of those things now, and I will never be
able to do any of those things, so I would rather spend my time thinking about
things I can actually do, like: What is the best way to answer your question?

Finally, it's fine if you want to
think about time travel, but if such a thing does exist, currently or in the
future, I would think that there would be evidence to verify it. Right now, I'm
not aware of any such evidence.

Back to the Future? -
Comment

Doc: Great thoughts regarding
time travel. But one seemingly glaring (to me) possibility is something like a
Time Traveler's Prime Directive. The idea comes from Star Trek's "Prime
Directive." The Starfleet peeps in the shows make vows not to interfere in
foreign/alien cultures. So, why wouldn't a person from the future who
possibly came to visit 2010, or any other year, be possibly held to a similar
standard? And if they were to violate it, there are authorities perhaps in
place who could travel to whatever time frame was damaged to repair the mistake.

Just adding to your "mind experiment" line of thought. - Mike in Denver

Mike: I have only seen one
or two episodes of Star Trek, so I never heard of the "Prime Directive."
But I did find a good explanation of the topic in this article.
I had to read the article a few times to figure out what was being explained.
All that from a TV show? Wow.

Anyway, since time travel exists
only in fiction, there are probably an infinite number of questions and
propositions that can be asked about the concept. Your comment is one of them
and it's a good stepping stone for someone else to say, "Well, what about . . .
?" or "Yes, but what if . . .?" Great questions for people who like to use
their imagination.

Bad
Driving

I
live in the Philadelphia area and have noticed recently that there seem to be
more bad drivers on the roads. But what seems more important is that it seems
that the bad drivers all have American flags on their vehicles. Do you know if
there is a relationship between bad driving and American flag stickers or flags
hanging on the windows? - Anonymous

Anon:
Oh, please. Is there salmonella turkey being served around the country? I know
there isn’t a full moon right now. There must be something and I’ll have to
check it out.

If
my memory serves me correctly, I believe the sudden display of patriotism via
flags on vehicles began with the September 11 moron episode. Me thinks that your
perception of a correlation between bad driving (whatever that means) and a
display of the American flag is based on a heightened awareness of the display
of the American flag on vehicles.

However,
I could be wrong and will be happy to admit my error if someone can show me hard
scientific data verifying the correlation. No such data exist that I know about.

Finally,
I always thought that every driver in America believes in the same driving
"law," which is:

There
is a 100% positive correlation between bad driving and anyone who isn’t me.

Bad
Language

I’m
a PD and I have been getting several phone calls from listeners complaining that
my morning show team is using obscene language and talking about things that
shouldn’t be talked about on the air. What is the best approach to use in this
type of situation? – Anonymous

Anon: As you can see, I edited your question a bit. Your original question
included information that I consider proprietary and I don’t think you really
want that out in public. Hope you don’t mind.

The phone calls are an indication that something may be going on, but you need
to be careful here because the calls may not represent your other listeners.

If you think that the complaints have any merit, it may be time to conduct a
research study to determine if the opinions exist with your audience. There is a
trend showing up around the country indicating that many radio listeners are
tuning away from jocks who concentrate on obscenities (whatever they are) and
inappropriate topics (whatever they are). Markets and formats are different when
it comes to "bad" things.

Bad Morning Show Ratings

I’m at a stand-alone Alternative
that has had two horrid trends. Trends so bad that no one could have predicted
them—a 0.9 followed by 0.8. We used to be in the mid 3s. The small amount of
research the station does shows the morning show is liked. They describe the
show as funny. If there is a complaint, it involves not hearing enough music.
We play eight an hour most of the time. So, can the research be so far off? Is
funny not enough? - Anonymous

Anon: Well, let’s see
here. The bad trends could be caused by one or a combination of several things
including, but not limited to:

The numbers are correct and
indicate a significant current problem with your radio station.

The numbers are correct and
indicate a significant problem in the past that has finally emerged.

The numbers are incorrect and may
be a function of poor samples.

The numbers are close to correct
and indicate a need to investigate the situation.

I can’t comment on the “small
amount of research” you have done. I don’t know what you have done. I don’t
know the type of respondents you included in the research, and I don’t know the
types of questions you asked.

For example, you say that, “The
small amount of research the station does shows the morning show is liked.”
Liked by whom? Who did you ask? Were the respondents cumers or fans (P1s) of
the morning show? Also….Liked how? What types of questions were asked? What
did they like?

You also say, “Is funny not
enough?” While the listeners in your research may have described the morning
show as funny, you didn’t indicate how important “funny” is to them. Funny may
or may not be important to them, and if it is, it may not be the only
element the listeners want. I don’t know. However, the fact that a show is
funny (or described as such) does not guarantee success. I think Jay Leno is
funny, but I never watch his show.

Your trends are obviously pitiful
and there is something going on. Check the samples when you can. They may be
the culprit. You also need to find out what your target listeners want in a
morning show. If you do another research project, do not use only your
listeners. If the trends are correct, the study will take forever to complete,
and when it is done, you’ll have answers from people you’re probably not
interested in.

Is your research that “far off?” I
need to know what kind of research you did.

Balance
Sheet

I
have been in a few meetings when the GM has talked about our radio
station’s "balance sheet." Could you explain that please? – GB

GB: A balance sheet is a brief summary of a company’s financial situation. The
top of the balance sheet shows what the company has, or its assets, listed in
order of liquidity—from cash, accounts receivable, to fixed assets such as
property and equipment. The bottom of the balance sheet shows what the company
owes, or its liabilities, listed in order of immediacy (accounts payable are
usually the most immediate liabilities). On a balance sheet, the assets must
equal liabilities plus shareholders equity (the amount that assets exceed
liabilities).

The balance sheet is different from the income statement (or P & L), which
essentially shows where money is coming from (income) and where money is going
to (expenses). It also shows the company’s net income (profit or loss)

Together, the balance sheet and the income statement show the financial
condition of a company—not much different from you figuring out how much you
are worth (what you have minus what you owe).

Balloons

Me
again. I’m the one who sent the question about Tiger Woods. Anyway, it has
been a boring day and I have watched a lot of TV. I saw the old TV show
"Alias Smith & Jones" on cable. In the beginning of the show, the
scene was at a carnival. A person was walking around selling brightly colored
helium-filled balloons. That didn’t seem right. Were there such balloons in
the "Old West?" - Anonymous

Anon:
You must be bored today. I would say that’s an error by the production company
since the balloons as we know them now were invented by Neil Tillotson in 1933…a
few years after the "Old West."

Band Saw Part

Doc: I have question about a
band saw. I have asked a few people, but no one knew the answer. I think you
know something about tools, so I'll ask you.

On my band saw, behind the
blade, there is a small wheel with ball bearings in it. Do you know the name of
the little wheel? - Anonymous

Anon: I'm fairly sure that you're
referring to the thrust bearing, which stops the blade from moving when
something is being sawed. A band saw can have one, two, or four thrust
bearings. The number depends on the manufacturer.

Here is a photo of a thrust
bearing. If this isn't what you're talking about, let me know—although I'm
about 100% sure that this is what you mean.

Bar Over (Line Over) a
Letter - How Do I Type? (aka: Over Bar and Over Line)

Doc: Here is a research report
typing question for you. Do you know how to type a line over a letter as is
often used in statistics? An example would be the symbol for the mean of a data
set where the mean is the letter X with a line or bar over it? I use Microsoft
Word if that matters. - David

David: It's not too
difficult to do what you're asking. I learned this a long time ago, so I can't
give credit to the person who taught me. I forgot. Anyway, follow these
steps:

Place your cursor where you want
to insert a character or word with an over line (over bar).

Press CTRL + F9 to insert a set
of braces. (Command+F9 on a Mac).

Between the braces, type . . . EQ
\x \to (X) . . . to insert an over line above an X, otherwise replace X (the
second X in the formula) with another character or word.

Press Shift+F9 (Option+F9 on a
Mac).

I know the process works for
Word, but I don't know if it works for a Mac since I don't own any Mac
products.

Barrel of Oil

With all the discussion about
the cost of a barrel of oil, I was wondering how many gallons of gas are in one
barrel. Any idea? - Anonymous

Anon: According to
several sites on the Internet, a barrel of oil contains 42 gallons.
Here’s how one barrel is refined…

One barrel of crude oil makes about
19½ gallons of gasoline, 9 gallons of diesel fuel, 4 gallons of jet fuel, and
about 10 gallons of other products, including lubricants, kerosene, asphalt, and
petrochemicals to make plastics.

By the way, it costs about $8.00 to
find and produce ONE barrel of oil. Since the current price is about $70 per
barrel, it’s easy to calculate how much money the oil producing companies are
making. (The United States uses about 17 million barrels of oil each day.)

Baseball
Diamond

On
a baseball diamond, the distance between bases is 90 feet. How far is it from
home plate to second base? And, is the pitcher’s mound in the middle of that
distance? - Gene

Gene:
I’m assuming that you are not a student and I’m helping you with your
homework.

OK,
in order to answer your question, we need to use a formula generally attributed
to an ancient dead dude, Pythagoras—the guy you studied in geometry class (if
you took one).

A
baseball diamond is a 90’ square. If we use home plate, first
base, and second base, this forms an isosceles right triangle. The line from
home plate to second base is called the hypotenuse of the triangle (the longest
line).

To
find the distance of the hypotenuse of an isosceles triangle, you multiply the
square root of 2 (1.4142135) times the length of one of the remaining sides (90’),
which gives you 127.279 feet (or 127’ 3 3/8"). This is to the back of
second base since the bases are placed inside the 90’ square.

The
pitcher’s mound (actually the rubber) is placed 60’ 6" from home plate,
which means that it is slightly in front of the line from third base to first
base.

Now,
what is the distance from third base to first base (or vice versa)?

Baseball and
Humidity

Doc: I was watching a baseball
game and the announcer was referring to how far the ball travels in different
weather. He said, "Wait until the summer when the ball will travel farther." I
thought the more humidity in the air, the less a baseball with travel. For the
opposite, just take a look at your Rockies' stadium. Home run heaven in the thin
air. Doc, as they say in the army, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?" - Anonymous

You said, "I thought the more
humidity in the air, the less a baseball with travel." Actually, that's wrong
and that's the reason for your misunderstanding about the announcer's comment.
In reality, humid air is lighter (less dense) than dry air. The announcer was
correct, but humidity isn't the only factor in how far a hit baseball will
travel. There are several things that will affect a baseball's flight,
including, but not limited to, humidity, ambient temperature, altitude, wind,
and how hard a ball is hit. But let's concentrate on the announcer's comment
about summer.

Cold air is actually denser than
warm air, which means there is less friction on a hit (or thrown) baseball in
the summertime than in cooler times of the year—a hit baseball will travel
farther in the summer because the air isn't as dense. Secondly, the baseball is
warmer during the summer, and a warm baseball hit off a bat travels farther than
a cold baseball. (Both of these points also relate to golf balls, footballs,
and soccer balls.)

A third effect on the distance a
hit baseball will travel is altitude, which you referred to in reference to
Coors Field here in Denver. Air density decreases as altitude increases, so the
combination of warm air during the summer, altitude, and a warm baseball
generate a lot of home runs in Coors Field that wouldn't be home runs in other
parks around the country.

Humidity does have some effect on a
hit baseball, but the effect is opposite of your perception. In baseball,
summertime is the best time for home runs in open-air baseball parks. (I need
to mention that some sources say that humidity has very little, if any, effect
on the distance a baseball travels after being hit by a bat.)

There are many interesting articles
on the Internet about this topic—click
here and
here.

Baseball Stats

Doc, great column. I’m a
baseball nut and have looked at many big league career stats. I’ve noticed a
trend in almost everyone that has played 10 years or longer. Near the end of
their career, there is one year that is just awful (without injury), they bounce
back for a few more years, and then they retire. Almost every player. Is there
a statistical reason for this, or is it just coincidence? - Anonymous

Anon: Thanks for the comment. I’m
glad you enjoy the column. I have never seen a statistical study about your
question, but I’m going to take a guess.

First, any baseball player who has
been in the major leagues for 10 years is probably a person who is above average
in talent. If not, the person wouldn’t last 10 years. In statistics, there is
a phenomenon known as “regression toward the mean,” which shows that elements
below the mean or above the mean will eventually gravitate toward the mean (the
things below the mean get “better,” and the things above the mean get “worse.”

In the case of a 10-year baseball
veteran who has played above average for several years, regression toward the
mean indicates that he will eventually become a poorer player and regress toward
the mean (perform more closely to the average player).

My guess is that although
professional athletes (not only baseball players) don’t know about regression
toward the mean, but they do know the theory behind it—that they can’t stay
above average forever. OK, so the player has played for years at a high level
and then has a bad year. It’s time for him to think about moving on to
insurance or automobile sales. But I think what happens is that most of these
players think something like, “I’m good. I had one rotten year, but I still
have a few good years left.” And they continue playing and perform at their
previous level—a self-fulfilling prophecy. (It they had one bad year and think,
“I’m done,” then they probably would do that too.)

Nearly everything in life follows
the regression toward the mean phenomenon—stock prices, radio ratings, grades in
school, or performance on a professional field. So I don’t think it’s rare for
an above average athlete to have one bad year and then bounce back. Statistics
show that they will do this regardless of how good they are. Even Tiger Woods
will have a bad year or two…when he’s about 122 years old.

Bathtub Phenomenon

Howdy Doc: I'm a guy who likes
to take the occasional long, hot, relaxing bath. I have noticed this weird
phenomenon, and would like your take on it. It happens after I have sat
motionless in the hot water for a while. When I suddenly move my leg, the water
feels several degrees warmer for a moment. Then that warmer feeling goes away.
I can do it time after time while in that bath, with the same result every
time. Why? Thanks, Doc! - Geno

Geno: I searched the
Internet for the answer to your question and couldn't find an exact description,
but I was able to develop an answer for you based on several articles I read.

However, I did have a problem with
your question because you didn't mention if your legs are motionless under the
water, or if you're lying on your back with your legs bent at the knees and up
in the air spread apart in different time zones. Since I don't have that
information, there are two answers to your question. But before I get to your
answers, I think I should review the four ways humans lose body heat or transfer
body heat. I found a good summary of the four methods at PilotFriend
(edited by me).

Radiation: The transfer of
heat from an object of intense temperature to an object of lower temperature
through space by radiant energy. The rate of heat transfer depends mainly on
the difference in temperature between the objects. If the temperature of the
body is higher than the temperature of the surrounding objects, a greater
quantity of heat is radiated away from the body than is radiated to the body.

Conduction: The transfer of
heat between objects that have different temperatures and are in contact—heated
molecules from one object transfer to molecules of cooler adjacent objects. The
proximity of these objects will determine the overall rate of conduction.

Convection: The transfer of
heat from the body in liquids or gases in which molecules are free to move.
During body-heat loss, the movement of air molecules is produced when the body
heats the surrounding air; the heated air expands and rises because it is
displaced by denser, cooler air. Respiration, which contributes to the
regulation of body temperature, is a type of convection.

Evaporation: Evaporative
heat loss involves the changing of a substance from its liquid state (sweat,
water) to its gaseous state. When water on the surface of the body evaporates,
heat is lost. Evaporation is the most common and usually the most easily
explained form of heat loss.

OK, with those explained, let's go
to your answers . . .

Legs Bent/Knees in Different
Time Zones. This situation involves evaporation and is relatively
straight-forward. If your legs are under the water and you then expose them to
the air for a while, evaporation causes your skin to cool and the water will
feel warm when you put your legs back into the water.

Legs Under Water.
This situation probably involves conduction—the transfer of heat from one object
to another. The key to the answer to your question is that you said you keep
your legs motionless. Why is this the key? Because the average human
body skin temperature ranges from 90° to 93° F (although this varies depending
on many variables), and your bath water is probably in the range of 100° to 104°
F. I doubt it's hotter than that because the human pain threshold in water is
106° to 108° F. (The Consumer Products Safety Commission recommends a maximum
of 104° F for a spa.)

OK . . . your normal/average skin
temperature is 90° to 93º F, and the bath water is about 100° to 104° F.
Following the conduction idea, a very thin film (or layer) of water surrounding
your submersed body parts will lose heat to your cooler skin. That is, your
submersed body parts cool a very thin film of water that is contact with your
body, and the thin film will become cooler (closer to your skin temperature) the
longer you remain motionless. However, when you move—even the slightest
movement—your submersed parts again come in contact with warmer water. There ya
go. Go jump in the tub.